Central Alberta man faces charges for shooting a theif

[Ford Prefect]

To me the interesting issue is not whether he was trying to kill the thief or just teach him a lesson, or whether he should have used a fire arm. Clearly he should not have used a fire arm. That's the law. What interests me is how the courts handle it from a vigilanteism point of view. Vigilanteism is a seductive concept when the justice system appears to be failing in some way. I can imagine circumstances in which I would find vigilanteism appealing, say if somebody harmed one of my family. As appealing as vigilanteism is though, it cannot be allowed if the rule of law and order is to be maintained in society. For that reason, I suspect the courts might come down hard on this guy just to send the message that vigilanteism will not be tolerated.

[Daradon]

^^^ That's the funny thing too, so do I. And that kinda scares me, so I'm glad the law is enforced the way it is.

Actually I think pretty much everyone finds vigilanteism seductive, as long as they're the vigilante (or the vigilante lines up pretty much to their moral center). And therein lies the rub of course. Everyone is going to have their different lines of what's acceptable and what's overboard.

[Orange]

See I'm not really swayed either way, I can very easily see where Brian Knight was coming from, and I can also see the whole, not shooting the guy thing .

Originally Posted by Daradon

so I'm glad the law is enforced the way it is.

Yep, got to love the law. Regardless of what you think should or should not happen to Mr. Knight, it's always nice to see a known thief who just stole an ATV, was caught, and then stole a truck, get released the same day. Afterall, he did promise he'll show up to court where we can all agree he'll have very stern talking to. Ah, good ol' Canadian justice system.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

For that reason, I suspect the courts might come down hard on this guy just to send the message that vigilanteism will not be tolerated.

The same courts who don't come down hard on anyone?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Orange

See I'm not really swayed either way, I can very easily see where Brian Knight was coming from, and I can also see the whole, not shooting the guy thing .


Yep, got to love the law. Regardless of what you think should or should not happen to Mr. Knight, it's always nice to see a known thief who just stole an ATV, was caught, and then stole a truck, get released the same day. Afterall, he did promise he'll show up to court where we can all agree he'll have very stern talking to. Ah, good ol' Canadian justice system.

The same courts who don't come down hard on anyone?

I don't agree with everything the justice system does by a long shot, and I've already announced in my first or second post that perhaps they will go a bit easier on him and I'd be ok with that, but in this case, yeah I'm glad the law is enforced the way it is.

Stealing is a crime, and it's not right, but it does not equal getting injured or murdered.

As far as people who complain the system is too soft, I'm on the fence about that. I think the system gets some cases right, others wrong. But I definitely disagree with the loud people on one edge of the spectrum that are always complaning the system is too soft. There are countries with much softer laws that have less crime. I thing we should be looking at ways to make society better, instead of just punishing people harsher.

But that's just an opinion of mine. I know it doesn't work in all cases. But that's the thing. Whether you have draconian laws, or loose, leftish, hippie style laws, there's always going to be some people who just don't get it. There is never an ultimate deterrent, and nothing can ever fix things completely AFTER a crime has been committed, especially violent crimes. So the severity of punishments doesn't really change anything.

It's just part of life. We should be focusing on prevention, not punishment.

[Orange]

Originally Posted by Daradon

It's just part of life. We should be focusing on prevention, not punishment.

You know what sounds like good prevention? The idea of being shot in the back if you commit a crime.

Anyways about "I'm glad the law is enforced the way it is." absolutely nothing has been enforced, at least not yet (and looks like it might come down to who ends up on the jury).

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Orange

You know what sounds like good prevention? The idea of being shot in the back if you commit a crime.

Anyways about "I'm glad the law is enforced the way it is." absolutely nothing has been enforced, at least not yet (and looks like it might come down to who ends up on the jury).

Haha obviously you skimmed my post cause I explained why that doesn't actually work. There are very few deterrents that work. Heck there's studies that show that the death penalty doesn't deter a significant % of crimes. And that's the threat of death!

You are right though, nothing has been decided yet. I imagine they will both get some time. I guess I should say that I'm glad he was charged and they are taking a look at the case.

If he truly does have a point or right, it will come out in the trial.

[Crispy's Critter]

I think you guys are all missing the most important thing: It was a really nice quad.

But on a serious note, as someone who has had things I worked hard to buy and maintain both stolen and vandalized, and to have had the people responsible caught only to watch them walk away with nothing more than a mild lecture, I can totally understand this guy's thought process. It's maddening that the victim's rights get trumped by that of a criminal's more often than not. If I had had a gun you can bet I would have been the one up on charges.

However, having matured somewhat since those incidents (it's all relative) I realize vigilanteism is wrong for many reasons, but something more needs to be done to deter crime. If criminals know they can not only get away with their crimes, but can completely turn the law around on their victim or the police if something happens to them in the course of getting caught or fleeing, something is definitely wrong with the system.

I don't know what the answer is really, as courts are reluctant to put people behind bars for smaller crimes due to the cost, and surely we've evolved beyond lynching and cutting off limbs as deterrents, but shooting someone as they are fleeing isn't exactly right either.

I do know who I'd be more inclined to sympathize with though.

[Finny61]

Heard about this story last night, I can't say I fully support vigilante justice but I certainly have zero sympathy to the thief. Rewind some time and this would have been normal day to day occurrence. Population cleansing

[flamesfever]

He was just making a "Citizen's arrest". Perhaps this should be allowed for folks living in the country.

[CaptainCrunch]

No sympathy for the thief in this case, he took his chances and ate a bullet.

However the farmer went way above and beyond in this case, once you chase off a scumbag there's no need to pursue him, thats the police's job.

Its up to the judge in this case, but there's no doubt that gunny mac kablam is probably going to face jail time.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Please do not take this as a defence of the guy ... he had no right shooting at someone over this. However, to add some context, I know that a lot of people in rural Alberta are getting hit really hard by thieves making off with everything from gas to tools to vehicles and machinery, and the cops aren't doing much to help them because they're stretched too thin as it is. So tensions are pretty high and citizens feel they're getting hung out to dry by the cops. It's the type of enviroment that breeds vigilanteism. Again, I'm not justifying this guy, just trying to give some context.

This is so very true. I think alot of people in this thread have not been stolen from repeatedly.
We had a guy who was stealing our gas constantly, and the police couldn't do a damn thing about it. Cops rarely patrolled our area out in the dry-land.
After awhile, it takes its toll and going vigilante seems like the only solution.
I dont think I would personally shoot a guy for coming into my place and taking an ATV............but if he kept coming back again and again to take things I would be tempeted to stay out at night and fire some warning shots to scare the ###### bag off.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Orange

The same courts who don't come down hard on anyone?

They came down pretty hard on Robert Latimer, harder than they usually, which I think was due to the courts wanting to send a message.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is so very true. I think alot of people in this thread have not been stolen from repeatedly.
We had a guy who was stealing our gas constantly, and the police couldn't do a damn thing about it. Cops rarely patrolled our area out in the dry-land.
After awhile, it takes its toll and going vigilante seems like the only solution.
I dont think I would personally shoot a guy for coming into my place and taking an ATV............but if he kept coming back again and again to take things I would be tempeted to stay out at night and fire some warning shots to scare the ###### bag off.

There may be this and other factors, that have not been made public, that prompted this young man to act in the way he did.

[Rifleman]

His biggest mistake was not getting rid of the body.

[Orange]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

They came down pretty hard on Robert Latimer, harder than they usually, which I think was due to the courts wanting to send a message.

He was found guilty of second degree murder which has a mandatory sentence of 25 years without parole for 10. He was, initially, sentenced to 1 year in prison. But, as mentioned, there's a very clear minimum sentence for second degree murder of which the supreme court had to enforce.

Robert Latimer was given parole after 10 years, achieving the absolute minimum sentence for second degree murder.

I'm sure we can find cases of when the court really does try to make an example by enforcing harsher punishments, but this is most definetly not the case with the Latimer trial.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Orange

He was found guilty of second degree murder which has a mandatory sentence of 25 years without parole for 10. He was, initially, sentenced to 1 year in prison. But, as mentioned, there's a very clear minimum sentence for second degree murder of which the supreme court had to enforce.

Robert Latimer was given parole after 10 years, achieving the absolute minimum sentence for second degree murder.

I'm sure we can find cases of when the court really does try to make an example by enforcing harsher punishments, but this is most definetly not the case with the Latimer trial.

There's no point in opening that can of worms. Sorry, I shouldn't have brought that example up.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is so very true. I think alot of people in this thread have not been stolen from repeatedly.
We had a guy who was stealing our gas constantly, and the police couldn't do a damn thing about it. Cops rarely patrolled our area out in the dry-land.
After awhile, it takes its toll and going vigilante seems like the only solution.
I dont think I would personally shoot a guy for coming into my place and taking an ATV............but if he kept coming back again and again to take things I would be tempeted to stay out at night and fire some warning shots to scare the ###### bag off.

Yup, I have a brother and sister who farm, as well as a lot of friends and acquaintances who farm. Gas theft may not seem like a big deal to urbanites, but it's no laughing matter when scum bags repeatedly drain a 1000 gallon tank of fuel. I've heard of several people who have done just what you mention ... fire a warning shot into the night sky. When tensions are up, it's not that surprising to see an incident escalate to the next level like this one did. People in the city go ape over stolen extension cords ... I wonder what they'd do if they were repeatedly getting ripped off for thousands of dollars of fuel.

[Azure]

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for the thief.

Maybe the guy went too far, but some people will go too far when it comes to protecting their property.

Considering a guy that killed in grandma, or mother(don't remember which it was)....got 10 years, this guy will probably get a thousand dollar fine, and a warning to not do it again.

Which is all I think he should get.

[killer_carlson]

On one hand, I can't blame the guy for going after the thief, but he went way too far shooting the guy and then calling in the vigilantes.

If this isn't curtailed, then we're going to end up with a kid dead because he wanted to go for a joyride or did something silly. That isn't what we want.

I hope they both get 6 months in jail, but put them in the same cell and let the farmer have another crack at him.

[Devils'Advocate]

There have been a fair number of people in this thread saying they have no sympathy to the thief. So I am assuming that you believe that death is the appropriate punishment for stealing an ATV? Because that's what could have happened in this case....